• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

First Major Step in a Plan to Ban All Firearms in the US

Wheelchair oc'er

New member
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
3
Location
N Las Vegas, NV
Have you heard?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/15/us-arms-usa-treaty-idUSTRE59E0Q920091015

The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms. The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened.

Granted this is old, from 2009, I thought it may be fitting to resurrect it now that I have found a group that is as dedicated to preserving our Rights as I am.
 
Last edited:

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
I would recommend you go back to the Constitution to see how treaties get approved and whether or not it bypasses Congress.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
 

Wheelchair oc'er

New member
Joined
May 6, 2012
Messages
3
Location
N Las Vegas, NV
I am fully aware of what our Constitution reads, and I am glad that you and I agree on that point. I believe that our current Commander in Chief and his Administration, doggedly insist that "treaties supersede the Constitution" because they want treaties to supersede the Constitution so they can escape the chains of the Constitution! And they plan and scheme relentlessly toward achieving that end.
 

The Big Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
1,966
Location
Waco, TX
Have you heard?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/15/us-arms-usa-treaty-idUSTRE59E0Q920091015

The Obama administration intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations. By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the US State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the US Government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments. These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms. The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened.

Granted this is old, from 2009, I thought it may be fitting to resurrect it now that I have found a group that is as dedicated to preserving our Rights as I am.

Welcome to the forum.

Yeh I brought this up a long time ago. Many on here felt that it could never happen. If one follows the subject you will see that we are indeed moving closer to it. Obama has made statements that leads one to believe he can simply bypass congress. It is going to pass, and the Obama administration will try to enforce it.

TBG
 

kcgunfan

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
1,002
Location
KC
Let's say that President Obama does sign the treaty without consent of the Senate. First, it would be unenforceable due to the Reid v Covert case, which held that treaties may not supersede the Constitution, Secondly, the House would trip over itself in it's hurry to impeach President Obama. Finally, I bet that there is good chance that the Senate would them vote him out.

I would encourage you to not listen to the whackballs on either side of the fence. As usual, the truth lines in the middle somewhere.

I am fully aware of what our Constitution reads, and I am glad that you and I agree on that point. I believe that our current Commander in Chief and his Administration, doggedly insist that "treaties supersede the Constitution" because they want treaties to supersede the Constitution so they can escape the chains of the Constitution! And they plan and scheme relentlessly toward achieving that end.
 

Nevada carrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
1,293
Location
The Epicenter of Freedom
Let's say that President Obama does sign the treaty without consent of the Senate. First, it would be unenforceable due to the Reid v Covert case, which held that treaties may not supersede the Constitution, Secondly, the House would trip over itself in it's hurry to impeach President Obama. Finally, I bet that there is good chance that the Senate would them vote him out.

I would encourage you to not listen to the whackballs on either side of the fence. As usual, the truth lines in the middle somewhere.

The Senate would back president Obama, they are controlled by the Democrats, but the House on the other hand would not stand for it. Reid would never allow a motion to come before the Senate that would jeopardize his party's power.

Also take into consideration that there are three hundred million firearms in private hands, if any military force attempted to confiscate them and only 50% of those guns took out a member of that force, that's 150 million casualties. That would be a death toll of biblical proportions that would far exceed any single conflict in human history; and they know this. Attempting to confiscate firearms from Americans would be the catalyst for the bloodiest massacre to befall the human race. It would start a civil war that would be impossible to fight short of a scorched earth campaign that would result in unimaginable collateral damage. It would trigger the second coming of the american revolution only this time it would not be fought by farmers with pitchforks, but would be lead by veteran officers with ranks and files full of veteran Soldiers who know how to fight. Imagine an insurgency like the one in Iraq but on the scale of the United states. Sound like a winnable campaign?
 
Last edited:

09jisaac

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2011
Messages
1,692
Location
Louisa, Kentucky
I would like to think that too. If there was anything major forced upon american citizens by the federal government, major enough to start a sizable civil war/rebellion, then I don't think many in our armed forces would fight american citizens like that.

I see most in the armed forces as good people, just like you and I, they will follow to an extent. After that point is reached though, they will distance themselves from what they are told to do and go towards what they know is right (not killing American's for their guns).

And if the Feds bring in troops from other countries to fight the Citizens then that would be a whole new can of worms.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
I am fully aware of what our Constitution reads, and I am glad that you and I agree on that point. I believe that our current Commander in Chief and his Administration, doggedly insist that "treaties supersede the Constitution" because they want treaties to supersede the Constitution so they can escape the chains of the Constitution! And they plan and scheme relentlessly toward achieving that end.

They can believe that all they want but the fact remains their hands are bound by chains of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Charges of high treason would be in order for a president to do otherwise.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
The Senate would back president Obama, they are controlled by the Democrats, but the House on the other hand would not stand for it. Reid would never allow a motion to come before the Senate that would jeopardize his party's power.

Also take into consideration that there are three hundred million firearms in private hands, if and military force attempted to confiscate them and only 50% of those guns took out a member of that force, that's 150 million casualties. That would be a death toll of biblical proportions that would far exceed any single conflict in human history; and they know this. Attempting to confiscate firearms from Americans would be the catalyst for the bloodiest massacre to befall the human race. It would start a civil war that would be impossible to fight short of a scorched earth campaign that would result in unimaginable collateral damage. It would trigger the second coming of the american revolution only this time it would not be fought by farmers with pitchforks, but would be lead by veteran officers with ranks and files full of veteran Soldiers who know how to fight. Imagine an insurgency like the one in Iraq but on the scale of the United states. Sound like a winnable campaign?

Well such an event would not be a precedent. After all, the spark which ignited the American Revolution was gun control.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
I would like to think that too. If there was anything major forced upon american citizens by the federal government, major enough to start a sizable civil war/rebellion, then I don't think many in our armed forces would fight american citizens like that.

I see most in the armed forces as good people, just like you and I, they will follow to an extent. After that point is reached though, they will distance themselves from what they are told to do and go towards what they know is right (not killing American's for their guns).

And if the Feds bring in troops from other countries to fight the Citizens then that would be a whole new can of worms.

My last job was with a major defense contractor and as one might expect, we frequently had members of the armed forces ion our building for seminars and such. On several occasions, I posed this question to some of them.

If an executive order was issued to the armed forces to begin the confiscation of privately owned firearms, do you believe the military would comply with the order?

To a man, they said "no". A few indicated that there would be a couple of officers who would be willing to carry it out but the vast majority would not and they would not because such an order would not only be illegal, but it would also be a violation of their military oath.

I had thought this would be the case and I also believe something else would be in the works against any administration which tried to do this. Think about it. You would have young enlisted people attempting to confiscate firearms and you can bet there would be flare ups across the nation. A soldier from, say, Oklahoma trying to disarm people in Georgia and getting shot at has to know the same thing is most likely happening in his home town as well where his friends and family could easily be targets of people like himself. He is NOT going to like that at all.
 

eamelhorn

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
143
Location
ripley wv
HMMMMM ever read the story of Blair Mt. this was almost 100 years ago. US planes bombed coal miners, WV National Guard fought against, fired upon and killed American citizens. The coal war ended when the coal miners, many of whom were veterens of WW1 laid down thier arms because they could not fire on American troops, with which they had fought side by side with. But that was 100 years ago, times are different. Yes they sure are Obama scares the crap out of me, he is smart and evil. A lethal combination. What if some kinda of armed civil upriasing occure's, who would fire on whom. Many younger Americans dont have the same since of patrotism as they did years ago due to brainwashing while in school. What would be the outcome if it ever happens. Just something to think about. I hope and praywe never find out. Obama will try an end around of the Constitution.
 

Nevada carrier

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
1,293
Location
The Epicenter of Freedom
What, like some sort of 'The Hessians
are coming kind of thing?'

america_wi_will_kill_you_in_your_sleep_on_christmas.jpg

Something like that!
 
Last edited:

nonameisgood

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
1,008
Location
Big D
Why in the world do you think that a Constitutional scholar, who has shown nothing except respect for that document, would ever try to destroy it? Of all people you could accuse of "being on the tipping point toward treason", our president is not one. We all could find something we do not like about any particular President's handling of one or more issues, but President Obama has done nothing to restrict ownership of firearms.

He is a Chicagoan, and many there simply have been raised and indoctrinated that guns are bad (and when you see people being killed on the magnitude seen there you might also). But to his credit, he hasn't attempted to impose that on the rest of us.

Chicken Little seems to be alive and well, and she isn't the canary in a coal mine, but someone whose sky is falling.
 

MyWifeSaidYes

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
1,028
Location
Logan, OH
Two words - Eric Holder

No, wait. That's not enough evidence.

Six words - Eric Holder still has a job!

Yes, it's possible for someone raised in Chigago to be brought up anti-gun, but Obama didn't move to Chicago unti 1985.

Hopefully, Obama has seen what the LACK of Legally Armed Citizens has done for both Chicago and DC and now realizes the importance of our rights protected by the 2A.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,837
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Constitutional scholar? I don't think so. Not when he said that,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs

These are not the words of a Constitutional scholar but more those of a radical non-believer in these our most hallowed founding documents. I might add that as soon as he uttered the words that the Constitution is a charter of negative rights, he departed from any measure of a Constitutional scholar for the simple fact that this is just not true.
 

beebobby

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
847
Location
, ,
Typical TPub fear mongering. We have heard this type of FUD since the election (even before he took office). I suspect we will hear an unending stream of this type of story as the election comes closer, especially considering who will be his GOP opponent.
 
Last edited:

ramkatral

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2012
Messages
60
Location
Tryon, NC
I'm a currently serving National Guardsman and did 4 years active duty Marine Corps. An order to do this would be wholly unconstitutional. I have no obligation in my oath or contract to carry it out. My oath didn't say "uphold and defend the government". It states "swear to uphold and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC". If the president or anyone else issues that order, they have violated this and thus become an enemy. You know what we do to enemies.
 

mohawk001

Regular Member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
113
Location
Sierra Vista, Arizona, USA
Typical TPub fear mongering. We have heard this type of FUD since the election (even before he took office). I suspect we will hear an unending stream of this type of story as the election comes closer, especially considering who will be his GOP opponent.

Oh, so you want to wear blinders do you? I sure do see a lot of this from the other side also. I just wonder why people choose to be half blind. Wake up and see what is happening all around and you will realize that there is a ton coming from the Dems also. But why face reality.........
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Oh, so you want to wear blinders do you? I sure do see a lot of this from the other side also. I just wonder why people choose to be half blind. Wake up and see what is happening all around and you will realize that there is a ton coming from the Dems also. But why face reality.........

Yes, we have heard this before. Not just with the current administration, and not just with the Ds.

While I do tend to do a ultimatefacepalm-1.png on hearing the "The sky is falling" stuff, it pays to stay aware.

stay safe.
 
Top